Embracing Danger: Self-Defense Firearms in the Home

The recent tragic news from Pretoria, South Africa, that Oscar Pistorius, the Paralympic gold medal-winning “Blade Runner,” is being charged with the murder of his girlfriend has received full international coverage in the media. The alleged weapon, a nine-millimeter semi-automatic pistol, just another South African “house gun” acquired for the self-defense of the fearful occupants, raises important questions of self-defense and civilian gun ownership the world over.

The original story, about which South African police are now expressing “skepticism,” was that on Valentine’s eve Pistorious mistook his girlfriend for a burglar when she attempted a romantic surprise. The new emerging version is that this latest incident was merely the culmination of a number of “domestic incidents.” Regardless of what happened, the balance of risk and safety associated with self-defense firearms kept in the home is once more in the spotlight.

South African commentators have drawn attention to the role fear of crime plays in encouraging the acquisition of self-defense firearms by private citizens. This fear also drives the construction of high-security residential complexes surrounded by electrified fences and patrolled by private armed response companies in which only the most affluent whites can afford to live. As a living legacy of apartheid, South Africa has one of the world’s highest rates of firearm-related violence, with around fifty people a day killed by gunfire. This violence, in turn, prompts high rates of gun ownership. There are thought to be around six million legally owned firearms in South Africa, with around thirteen percent of the population owning a gun. The thriving illegal firearm economy makes the actual number much higher.

The issue persists even in the United Kingdom, which, since the Dunblane School shooting in 1996, has had some of the strictest gun laws in the world including a civilian ban on handgun ownership. In Northern Ireland, as a legacy of “the Troubles,” several thousand private citizens retain an entitlement to personal protection firearms (perhaps a case of exceptional circumstances, exceptional measures). British shooting industry magazines often feature stories of firearms facilitating self-defense or “crime prevention.” Only last year, Britain’s justice minister spoke of the need for greater tolerance of householders who shoot burglars, while a spokesman for the elite British Association for Shooting and Conservation remarked upon a supposed “backlash” in British attitudes toward the possession of self-defense firearms. “Sadly,” he commented, “you can only own one now for sports or work.”

Despite the historical credentials of U.S. “gun culture,” the broader dilemmas of urban civilian defensive gun ownership are a product of late twentieth century neoliberal culture. This culture discredits governments, distrusts collectivist solutions, and emboldens ideologies of self-reliant individualism. Personal firepower has, like the sorcerer’s apprentice making off with his master’s wand, come to represent a troubling augmentation of individual capacity in a dangerous world. As the case of Pistorius highlights, we should be careful what we wish for and especially what we keep at home. The right to bear arms—or keep them at home—entails and facilitates more firearm-related violence. Creating a society of armed co-existence is a dangerous and ill-advised road to public safety, effectively prioritizing the right to kill over tackling the circumstances producing higher rates of risk and insecurity.

It’s important to note that purchasing a gun is common abuser behavior, and a crucial step in the pattern of domestic/intimate partner violence. Guns in the home may ostensibly be for self-protection, but they are also used by abusers to intimidate their victims. The following USA Today article highlights the ways in which abusers employ gun intimidation tactics against their victims, not only by direct threats, but also through more subtle (yet just as effective) means: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-10/domestic-violence-signs/55496458/1

What’s more, the presence of a gun in the home also escalates the violence, or at least, increases the likelihood that violence will turn to homicide. A well-known study at Johns-Hopkins from 2003 showed that battered women who have been threatened or assaulted with a gun are 20 times more likely to be murdered than other battered women. So, while a high crime rate may serve as an easy excuse or outward justification for an abuser to purchase a gun in the first place, there are also other motivations behind that decision. Unsurprisingly, a 2004 study published in the American Journal of Public Health showed that firearms are more common in homes where battery has occurred (36.7%), compared to the general population (16.7%). This is especially alarming when we consider the fact that despite the dearth of gun laws in the US, there actually ARE laws against buying or owning a gun (usually for a certain period of time, such as ten years) after a felony or misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, or if someone has a current restraining order against them. Despite the laws in place, however, this data demonstrates that abusers seek guns out, retain them, and then use them to intimidate, injure or kill their intimate partners.

In the US, the numbers are staggering: A CDC Report published in 2010 showed that 73% of female murder victims in the United States are killed in their homes (compared to just 45% of men). Furthermore, 2008 data compiled by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) shows that over 90% of female homicide victims are murdered by someone they know. The VPC also found that in 2010 alone, 574 women were shot to death by a male intimate partner (husband, ex-husband, boyfriend). The number is higher when you factor in ex-boyfriends and male relatives (including sons). This interactive infographic underscores the contrasts between male and female victims of gun violence when you disaggregate the data by gender: http://guns.periscopic.com/

Bottomline: We cannot ignore the specific role that guns play in established patterns of domestic violence. Guns in the home are much more likely to be used to kill a woman, than to protect her.

About the Author
Peter Squires

Peter Squires is Professor of Criminology at the University of Brighton, England. Since the early 1990s, he has been researching gun crime, violence, and gun control, among other issues. His new book, Gun Crime in Global Context, is due to be published later this year.